BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California custom homes expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California condominium expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California production housing expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California structural steel construction expert witness Anaheim California condominiums expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Hiring Subcontractors with Workers Compensation Insurance

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    AGC Seeks To Lead Industry in Push for Infrastructure Bill

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor

    Reminder: In Court (as in life) the Worst Thing You Can Do Is Not Show Up

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Claim for Vandalism Loss Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force Continues to Set Fire to the Underground Economy

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    Brown Act Modifications in Response to Coronavirus Outbreak
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Drawing from more than 4500 building and claims related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a comprehensive construction and design expert support solution to builders and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the building industry's most recognizable companies, insurers, risk managers, and a variety of municipalities. Utilizing in house resources which comprise credentialed construction consultants, NCARB certified architects, forensic engineers, building envelope and design experts, the construction experts group brings specialized experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California building code compliance expert witnessAnaheim California consulting engineersAnaheim California construction forensic expert witnessAnaheim California defective construction expertAnaheim California construction scheduling expert witnessAnaheim California fenestration expert witnessAnaheim California construction expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    April 13, 2020 —
    Service of process usually requires person-to-person contact and is an essential part of civil procedure. It notifies the defendant of the legal proceedings against him/her and establishes jurisdiction. “Process” refers to the documents that must be served on a defendant. If service of process is not performed pursuant to the governing rules of civil procedure, a lawsuit cannot proceed. Service of Process in NJ and PA Personal service is required to be the first attempted means of service in New Jersey. If personal service is not successful, then service may be made by mailing a copy of the process via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the defendant’s usual place of abode or business/place of employment, or to an authorized agent. The party attempting to serve the defendant by mail can choose to mail the process by regular mail as well, and if the defendant refuses to accept or claim the registered or certified copy, and the regular mail copy is not returned, then service is considered effectuated. Pennsylvania allows for a defendant to be served via personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or by delivering a copy to an adult family household member at the defendant’s residence. Pennsylvania also permits service of process by mail. Process can be served by mail requiring a signature of the defendant. If the mail is unclaimed, alternative service must be attempted. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, James Burger and Susan Zingone Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Zingone may be contacted at zingones@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    February 24, 2020 —
    Anyone who has worked in the construction industry is familiar with the financial risks involved. With thin margins, cash flow issues and the litany of potential claims and damages that can arise, contractors need to be able to manage that risk properly. There is the right way of going about it, and there's a wrong way. Unfortunately, the wrong way (which involves using leverage and shifting risk to other parties) is the more prevalent approach. There are different contractual tactics employed by owners and general contractors alike to shift financial risk to other parties. Why is construction so financially risky? There are a few different reasons there is so much risk involved. First and foremost, the construction payment chain itself is inherently risky. Owners and lenders release project funds and trust that the money will reach everyone on the job. But that can’t happen unless each link in the payment chain passes payment to the next. That's a lot of trust for an industry that's not particularly known for it. Another reason is how construction projects begin. Upfront payment is rare in this industry. This leads to floating the initial costs, extending credit and potentially borrowing money to do so. And those who typically bear this burden, lower-tier subs and suppliers, are the least equipped for that level of risk. Reprinted courtesy of Nate Budde, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Budde may be contacted at nate@levelset.com

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    May 25, 2020 —
    We all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams. The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic. Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

    April 20, 2020 —
    If the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread in the United States as it has in other countries, drastic expansions of hospital and quarantine facility capacity are likely to be necessary. In the hard-hit Seattle area, several temporary facilities are already under construction, including a 200-bed temporary quarantine and isolation center built on a soccer field. China’s response to the initial outbreak in the city of Wuhan demonstrates how rapidly authorities can add capacity in an emergency. As thousands of citizens became ill with COVID-19, China built two hospitals in Wuhan over the span of just days. Time-lapse videos such as this one show how remarkably quickly the hospitals were built. Construction on the Huoshenshan Hospital (shown in the prior linked video) began on January 23 and finished eight days later. A second hospital, Leishenshan Hospital, began construction on January 25 and finished 12 days later. Square footage information on both hospitals has been inconsistently reported, but Huoshenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,000 beds, while Leishenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,600 beds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Lee, Pillsbury
    Ms. Lee may be contacted at elaine.lee@pillsburylaw.com

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    April 13, 2020 —
    As the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event. Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract. Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party. California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.) If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party. Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts. Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
    Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

    New York Instructs Property Carriers to Advise Insureds on Business Interruption Coverage

    April 13, 2020 —
    The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) took the unusual step last week of instructing all property/casualty insurers to provide information on commercial property insurance and details on business interruption coverage in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The notice is here. The notice recognizes that policyholders have urgent questions about the business interruption coverage under their policies. Insurers must explain to policyholders the benefits under their policies and the protections provided in connection with COVID-19. The explanation to policyholders is to include the following relevant information.
    What type of commercial property insurance or otherwise related insurance policy does the insured hold?
    Does the insured's policy provide "business interruption" coverage? If so, provide the "covered perils" under such policy. Please also indicate whether the policy contains a requirement for "physical damage or loss" and explain whether contamination related to a pandemic may constitute "physical damage or loss." Please describe what type of damage or loss is sufficient for coverage under the policy.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

    May 18, 2020 —
    The draft legislation, entitled the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (“PRIA”), would establish a Federal Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Fund and Program (the “Program”), that is intended to provide a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption (“BI”) losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease. PRIA, in its current draft form, is modeled after and in many ways mirrors the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act that was enacted to address catastrophic losses resulting from acts of terrorism. PRIA effectively mandates that participating insurers provide coverage for any business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of infectious disease or pandemic that is declared an emergency or major disaster by the President and certified by the Secretary of Treasury (the “Secretary”) as a public health emergency. PRIA would be triggered in the case of certified public health emergencies upon the aggregate industry insured losses exceed $250 million dollars, and include an annual aggregate limit capped at $500 billion dollars. The draft bill provides that the Secretary would administer the Program and pay the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, which would be 95% of losses in excess of an applicable insurer annual deductible, once the Program is triggered. The compensation would benefit those insurers that elect to participate in the Program in exchange for a premium paid by the participating insurer for reinsurance coverage under the Program. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    March 02, 2020 —
    Private and public companies spend billions of dollars every year on construction projects. For these projects, time is money, and incorporating the most advantageous legal terms in the construction contract can minimize the number and extent of disputes, and ultimately save money. It is important to remember that the provisions in construction contracts are negotiable. In a common scenario, the contractor and owner informally agree to the scope of a construction project and its cost. When it is time to reduce the deal to writing, the contractor and owner decide to use an AIA contract that appears to be a standard form. The document looks to be on point, and the parties simply need to fill in a few blanks with the cost and scope-specific information. Presuming that the AIA provisions are mutually protective and beneficial, the parties do not think about altering the “standard” terms. They sign the contract, and the project begins. Months later, the owner and contractor end up disputing delays on the project, entitlement to various payments, and whether certain aspects of the work are defective. At this point, the parties realize that some of the contract’s terms could have been drafted a bit more favorably—but by that time it’s too late. So remember, construction contracts are negotiable, even provisions within “standard” AIA contracts. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. and Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Sampson may be contacted at phillip.sampson@bracewell.com. Mr. Whiteley may be contacted at richard.whiteley@bracewell.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of